I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins. I am interested in seeing the empirical, irrefutable evidence.

When I looked at the title of this thread, I thought that the discussion was going to be as to whether or not it is possible to create life in a test tube. In other words, for a scientist to take some non-living substances and to mix them up in such a way that you now have something living, even though it may be something extremely elementary. But people here seem to want to talk about other questions such as whether or not a plant has a soul. On such a philosophical question, it is possible to argue in either direction because the definition of soul has not been clarified. And suppose you did clarify the question as to whether or not a plant has a soul, or whether or not a fish has a soul, I don't see how this would answer the question as to the origin of life, unless you are claiming that all life depends on God implanting a soul in the object. But would this apply to viruses also?

I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins. I am interested in seeing the empirical, irrefutable evidence.

When I looked at the title of this thread, I thought that the discussion was going to be as to whether or not it is possible to create life in a test tube. In other words, for a scientist to take some non-living substances and to mix them up in such a way that you now have something living, even though it may be something extremely elementary. But people here seem to want to talk about other questions such as whether or not a plant has a soul. On such a philosophical question, it is possible to argue in either direction because the definition of soul has not been clarified. And suppose you did clarify the question as to whether or not a plant has a soul, or whether or not a fish has a soul, I don't see how this would answer the question as to the origin of life, unless you are claiming that all life depends on God implanting a soul in the object. But would this apply to viruses also?

As I stated, no one has provided an answer, which is no surprise. People do a fabulous job of attacking others and calling names, but when provided an opportunity to prove their ideas are accurate, failure is always the result. Nothing more than personal conjecture. What his thread reveals is a normal and predictable tactic. Alter the focus of the discussion ever so slightly and then babble about something not related. One person talks about plants, unrelated, while another talks about fetal survival rates in a laboratory and controlled environment, also unrelated. This is the very reason I dislike having these discussions. They begin by telling people how they lack intelligence and end without providing any substance to back up their original claims, which coincidentally is exactly what they demand from others. It reminds me of a movie which receives all kinds of hype, but when you leave the theater your are thinking, "That's it?". In addition, abiogenesis has been proven false several times. No one can ever breath life from nothing on their own.

As I stated, no one has provided an answer, which is no surprise. People do a fabulous job of attacking others and calling names, but when provided an opportunity to prove their ideas are accurate, failure is always the result. Nothing more than personal conjecture. What his thread reveals is a normal and predictable tactic. Alter the focus of the discussion ever so slightly and then babble about something not related. One person talks about plants, unrelated, while another talks about fetal survival rates in a laboratory and controlled environment, also unrelated. This is the very reason I dislike having these discussions. They begin by telling people how they lack intelligence and end without providing any substance to back up their original claims, which coincidentally is exactly what they demand from others. It reminds me of a movie which receives all kinds of hype, but when you leave the theater your are thinking, "That's it?". In addition, abiogenesis has been proven false several times. No one can ever breath life from nothing on their own.

Good job...welcome to the babble club

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins. I am interested in seeing the empirical, irrefutable evidence.

When I looked at the title of this thread, I thought that the discussion was going to be as to whether or not it is possible to create life in a test tube. In other words, for a scientist to take some non-living substances and to mix them up in such a way that you now have something living, even though it may be something extremely elementary. But people here seem to want to talk about other questions such as whether or not a plant has a soul. On such a philosophical question, it is possible to argue in either direction because the definition of soul has not been clarified. And suppose you did clarify the question as to whether or not a plant has a soul, or whether or not a fish has a soul, I don't see how this would answer the question as to the origin of life, unless you are claiming that all life depends on God implanting a soul in the object. But would this apply to viruses also?

As I stated, no one has provided an answer, which is no surprise. People do a fabulous job of attacking others and calling names, but when provided an opportunity to prove their ideas are accurate, failure is always the result. Nothing more than personal conjecture. What his thread reveals is a normal and predictable tactic. Alter the focus of the discussion ever so slightly and then babble about something not related. One person talks about plants, unrelated, while another talks about fetal survival rates in a laboratory and controlled environment, also unrelated. This is the very reason I dislike having these discussions. They begin by telling people how they lack intelligence and end without providing any substance to back up their original claims, which coincidentally is exactly what they demand from others. It reminds me of a movie which receives all kinds of hype, but when you leave the theater your are thinking, "That's it?". In addition, abiogenesis has been proven false several times. No one can ever breath life from nothing on their own.

No doubt you have seen the wikipedia article on abiogenesis:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbiogenesisThey list several current models, many of which are some variation of the primordial soup theory, but have not been proven because they would demand conditions on earth which are not present today. I am not sure why you say that they have been proven false.Also, there is the extraterrestrial theory, which of course, doesn't answer how life began in the extraterrestrial realm.

I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins. I am interested in seeing the empirical, irrefutable evidence.

When I looked at the title of this thread, I thought that the discussion was going to be as to whether or not it is possible to create life in a test tube. In other words, for a scientist to take some non-living substances and to mix them up in such a way that you now have something living, even though it may be something extremely elementary. But people here seem to want to talk about other questions such as whether or not a plant has a soul. On such a philosophical question, it is possible to argue in either direction because the definition of soul has not been clarified. And suppose you did clarify the question as to whether or not a plant has a soul, or whether or not a fish has a soul, I don't see how this would answer the question as to the origin of life, unless you are claiming that all life depends on God implanting a soul in the object. But would this apply to viruses also?

As I stated, no one has provided an answer, which is no surprise. People do a fabulous job of attacking others and calling names, but when provided an opportunity to prove their ideas are accurate, failure is always the result. Nothing more than personal conjecture. What his thread reveals is a normal and predictable tactic. Alter the focus of the discussion ever so slightly and then babble about something not related. One person talks about plants, unrelated, while another talks about fetal survival rates in a laboratory and controlled environment, also unrelated. This is the very reason I dislike having these discussions. They begin by telling people how they lack intelligence and end without providing any substance to back up their original claims, which coincidentally is exactly what they demand from others. It reminds me of a movie which receives all kinds of hype, but when you leave the theater your are thinking, "That's it?". In addition, abiogenesis has been proven false several times. No one can ever breath life from nothing on their own.

No doubt you have seen the wikipedia article on abiogenesis:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbiogenesisThey list several current models, many of which are some variation of the primordial soup theory, but have not been proven because they would demand conditions on earth which are not present today. I am not sure why you say that they have been proven false.Also, there is the extraterrestrial theory, which of course, doesn't answer how life began in the extraterrestrial realm.

Start with Louis Pasteur, 1859, spontaneous generation and biogenetic theory. There are others, but this is usually the best place to begin.

As I stated, no one has provided an answer, which is no surprise. People do a fabulous job of attacking others and calling names, but when provided an opportunity to prove their ideas are accurate, failure is always the result. Nothing more than personal conjecture. What his thread reveals is a normal and predictable tactic. Alter the focus of the discussion ever so slightly and then babble about something not related. One person talks about plants, unrelated, while another talks about fetal survival rates in a laboratory and controlled environment, also unrelated. This is the very reason I dislike having these discussions. They begin by telling people how they lack intelligence and end without providing any substance to back up their original claims, which coincidentally is exactly what they demand from others. It reminds me of a movie which receives all kinds of hype, but when you leave the theater your are thinking, "That's it?". In addition, abiogenesis has been proven false several times. No one can ever breath life from nothing on their own.

I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins. I am interested in seeing the empirical, irrefutable evidence.

When I looked at the title of this thread, I thought that the discussion was going to be as to whether or not it is possible to create life in a test tube. In other words, for a scientist to take some non-living substances and to mix them up in such a way that you now have something living, even though it may be something extremely elementary. But people here seem to want to talk about other questions such as whether or not a plant has a soul. On such a philosophical question, it is possible to argue in either direction because the definition of soul has not been clarified. And suppose you did clarify the question as to whether or not a plant has a soul, or whether or not a fish has a soul, I don't see how this would answer the question as to the origin of life, unless you are claiming that all life depends on God implanting a soul in the object. But would this apply to viruses also?

As I stated, no one has provided an answer, which is no surprise. People do a fabulous job of attacking others and calling names, but when provided an opportunity to prove their ideas are accurate, failure is always the result. Nothing more than personal conjecture. What his thread reveals is a normal and predictable tactic. Alter the focus of the discussion ever so slightly and then babble about something not related. One person talks about plants, unrelated, while another talks about fetal survival rates in a laboratory and controlled environment, also unrelated. This is the very reason I dislike having these discussions. They begin by telling people how they lack intelligence and end without providing any substance to back up their original claims, which coincidentally is exactly what they demand from others. It reminds me of a movie which receives all kinds of hype, but when you leave the theater your are thinking, "That's it?". In addition, abiogenesis has been proven false several times. No one can ever breath life from nothing on their own.

No doubt you have seen the wikipedia article on abiogenesis:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbiogenesisThey list several current models, many of which are some variation of the primordial soup theory, but have not been proven because they would demand conditions on earth which are not present today. I am not sure why you say that they have been proven false.Also, there is the extraterrestrial theory, which of course, doesn't answer how life began in the extraterrestrial realm.

Start with Louis Pasteur, 1859, spontaneous generation and biogenetic theory. There are others, but this is usually the best place to begin.

By the way, I am keenly aware of the revisionist definition of abiogenesis as a result. This sort of thing often happens, especially in the world of evolution.

As I stated, no one has provided an answer, which is no surprise. People do a fabulous job of attacking others and calling names, but when provided an opportunity to prove their ideas are accurate, failure is always the result. Nothing more than personal conjecture. What his thread reveals is a normal and predictable tactic. Alter the focus of the discussion ever so slightly and then babble about something not related. One person talks about plants, unrelated, while another talks about fetal survival rates in a laboratory and controlled environment, also unrelated. This is the very reason I dislike having these discussions. They begin by telling people how they lack intelligence and end without providing any substance to back up their original claims, which coincidentally is exactly what they demand from others. It reminds me of a movie which receives all kinds of hype, but when you leave the theater your are thinking, "That's it?". In addition, abiogenesis has been proven false several times. No one can ever breath life from nothing on their own.

Good job...welcome to the babble club

Not really. Read the post to which I replied.

I did...it wasn't that much of a babble. I give credence to his post because the title of this thread is misleading. But you continued to perpetuate into a babble about abiogenesis, which is what this thread isn't about. But good job, you continue to babble about abiogenesis anyway despite your allegations of other people "babbling" about issues pertaining to when "life begins in an embryo."

You don't have to agree with the arguments made by others to show that the union of sperm and egg does not necessarily prove personhood begins then. And I don't recall ridiculing you in any of the previous posts I made to your points in this thread. But you called my posts babbling. I'm not sure why you complain about being ridiculed then when you make the ridiculing.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

As I stated, no one has provided an answer, which is no surprise. People do a fabulous job of attacking others and calling names, but when provided an opportunity to prove their ideas are accurate, failure is always the result. Nothing more than personal conjecture. What his thread reveals is a normal and predictable tactic. Alter the focus of the discussion ever so slightly and then babble about something not related. One person talks about plants, unrelated, while another talks about fetal survival rates in a laboratory and controlled environment, also unrelated. This is the very reason I dislike having these discussions. They begin by telling people how they lack intelligence and end without providing any substance to back up their original claims, which coincidentally is exactly what they demand from others. It reminds me of a movie which receives all kinds of hype, but when you leave the theater your are thinking, "That's it?". In addition, abiogenesis has been proven false several times. No one can ever breath life from nothing on their own.

Good job...welcome to the babble club

Not really. Read the post to which I replied.

I did...it wasn't that much of a babble. I give credence to his post because the title of this thread is misleading. But you continued to perpetuate into a babble about abiogenesis, which is what this thread isn't about. But good job, you continue to babble about abiogenesis anyway despite your allegations of other people "babbling" about issues pertaining to when "life begins in an embryo."

You don't have to agree with the arguments made by others to show that the union of sperm and egg does not necessarily prove personhood begins then. And I don't recall ridiculing you in any of the previous posts I made to your points in this thread. But you called my posts babbling. I'm not sure why you complain about being ridiculed then when you make the ridiculing.

You make a legitimate point for which I can only accept and offer my apologies. I was unaware I had done this and it was indeed babbling. I appreciate your correction and will make every attempt to ensure I do not make this mistake again. I had not meant my post to be as critical of you as it read. That was not my intent and I did enjoy our dialogue on the matter. Please feel free to keep me within my own standards in the future in the event I make any additional slips.

I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins. I am interested in seeing the empirical, irrefutable evidence.

When I looked at the title of this thread, I thought that the discussion was going to be as to whether or not it is possible to create life in a test tube. In other words, for a scientist to take some non-living substances and to mix them up in such a way that you now have something living, even though it may be something extremely elementary. But people here seem to want to talk about other questions such as whether or not a plant has a soul. On such a philosophical question, it is possible to argue in either direction because the definition of soul has not been clarified. And suppose you did clarify the question as to whether or not a plant has a soul, or whether or not a fish has a soul, I don't see how this would answer the question as to the origin of life, unless you are claiming that all life depends on God implanting a soul in the object. But would this apply to viruses also?

As I stated, no one has provided an answer, which is no surprise. People do a fabulous job of attacking others and calling names, but when provided an opportunity to prove their ideas are accurate, failure is always the result. Nothing more than personal conjecture. What his thread reveals is a normal and predictable tactic. Alter the focus of the discussion ever so slightly and then babble about something not related. One person talks about plants, unrelated, while another talks about fetal survival rates in a laboratory and controlled environment, also unrelated. This is the very reason I dislike having these discussions. They begin by telling people how they lack intelligence and end without providing any substance to back up their original claims, which coincidentally is exactly what they demand from others. It reminds me of a movie which receives all kinds of hype, but when you leave the theater your are thinking, "That's it?". In addition, abiogenesis has been proven false several times. No one can ever breath life from nothing on their own.

No doubt you have seen the wikipedia article on abiogenesis:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbiogenesisThey list several current models, many of which are some variation of the primordial soup theory, but have not been proven because they would demand conditions on earth which are not present today. I am not sure why you say that they have been proven false.Also, there is the extraterrestrial theory, which of course, doesn't answer how life began in the extraterrestrial realm.

Start with Louis Pasteur, 1859, spontaneous generation and biogenetic theory. There are others, but this is usually the best place to begin.

By the way, I am keenly aware of the revisionist definition of abiogenesis as a result. This sort of thing often happens, especially in the world of evolution.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by the revisionist definition of abiogenesis for those of us who are only amateurs and not professional biologists? For example, I thought that abiogenesis was supposed to be an explanation of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. Of course, many theories have been discredited, but are you saying that all such theories have been conclusively proven to be false?

I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins. I am interested in seeing the empirical, irrefutable evidence.

When I looked at the title of this thread, I thought that the discussion was going to be as to whether or not it is possible to create life in a test tube. In other words, for a scientist to take some non-living substances and to mix them up in such a way that you now have something living, even though it may be something extremely elementary. But people here seem to want to talk about other questions such as whether or not a plant has a soul. On such a philosophical question, it is possible to argue in either direction because the definition of soul has not been clarified. And suppose you did clarify the question as to whether or not a plant has a soul, or whether or not a fish has a soul, I don't see how this would answer the question as to the origin of life, unless you are claiming that all life depends on God implanting a soul in the object. But would this apply to viruses also?

As I stated, no one has provided an answer, which is no surprise. People do a fabulous job of attacking others and calling names, but when provided an opportunity to prove their ideas are accurate, failure is always the result. Nothing more than personal conjecture. What his thread reveals is a normal and predictable tactic. Alter the focus of the discussion ever so slightly and then babble about something not related. One person talks about plants, unrelated, while another talks about fetal survival rates in a laboratory and controlled environment, also unrelated. This is the very reason I dislike having these discussions. They begin by telling people how they lack intelligence and end without providing any substance to back up their original claims, which coincidentally is exactly what they demand from others. It reminds me of a movie which receives all kinds of hype, but when you leave the theater your are thinking, "That's it?". In addition, abiogenesis has been proven false several times. No one can ever breath life from nothing on their own.

No doubt you have seen the wikipedia article on abiogenesis:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbiogenesisThey list several current models, many of which are some variation of the primordial soup theory, but have not been proven because they would demand conditions on earth which are not present today. I am not sure why you say that they have been proven false.Also, there is the extraterrestrial theory, which of course, doesn't answer how life began in the extraterrestrial realm.

Start with Louis Pasteur, 1859, spontaneous generation and biogenetic theory. There are others, but this is usually the best place to begin.

By the way, I am keenly aware of the revisionist definition of abiogenesis as a result. This sort of thing often happens, especially in the world of evolution.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by the revisionist definition of abiogenesis for those of us who are only amateurs and not professional biologists? For example, I thought that abiogenesis was supposed to be an explanation of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. Of course, many theories have been discredited, but are you saying that all such theories have been conclusively proven to be false?

I got an idea! Let's post a new thread about abiogenesis.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.